Clinical QuestionIn children presenting with acute severe asthma, does intravenous aminophylline improve meaningful clinical outcomes compared to standard therapy?⸻BackgroundIV aminophylline has historically been used as a second-line infusion in severe paediatric asthma. However, contemporary escalation strategies increasingly prioritise: • Oxygen • High-dose nebulised salbutamol • Systemic corticosteroids • IV magnesium sulphateThis raises the question: does aminophylline still offer incremental benefit?⸻The Evidence ReviewedA systematic review published in Archives of Disease in Childhood analysed: • 9 randomised controlled trials • 466 children • Standard therapy ± IV aminophyllineOutcomes assessed: • Asthma severity scores • Length of stay • Admission rates • PICU admission • Intubation rates • Adverse effects⸻Key FindingsNo significant benefit in: • Speed of clinical improvement • Admission rates • PICU transfer • Intubation rates • Length of hospital staySignificant increase in adverse effects: • Nausea and vomiting (3–5x higher) • Headache • Tremor • Irritability • ArrhythmiasOverall: No improvement in meaningful outcomes, with increased morbidity.⸻Important CaveatA 1998 study (Young & South) suggested possible benefit in the most critically unwell, treatment-refractory children, including: • Reduced duration of intubation • Potential improvement in lung functionThis suggests a potential narrow rescue-therapy window.⸻Implications for Paediatric Emergency Practice (2025)Current best evidence supports: 1. Oxygen 2. Nebulised salbutamol 3. Systemic corticosteroids 4. IV magnesium 5. Structured escalation planningIV aminophylline should be considered: • A rescue therapy of last resort • Not routine second-line treatment⸻Take-Home MessageIV aminophylline has historical presence but limited modern evidence of benefit. For most children with acute severe asthma, it increases adverse effects without improving outcomes.Its role in 2025: rare, selective, and critically contextual.